HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 37551 of 2026 Court No. - 1 HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J. HON'BLE SIDDHARTH NANDAN, J. 1. Heard Shri Chandra Kumar Rai, Advocate and Shri Devansh Misra, Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Shri Manas Bhargava, Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent no.2-U.P. Lokayukta and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. Submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that the Lokayukta and Deputy Lokayukta are not justified in entertaining a complaint in respect of execution of a sale-deed which is also subject matter of challenge in a Civil Suit being O.S. No.1614 of 2024 filed by the same complainant with same allegations which have been raised in the complaint made to the Lokayukta. 3. It is contended that after the Lokayukta had entertained the complaint and directed for a fact finding enquiry by a three Member Committee and report has been submitted, he has further desired the petitioner to submit more documents, it appears, for testing the findings arrived at by the three Members Committee. It is contended that three Member Committee itself has returned a finding that the allegations made in the complaint had no basis. He submits that once the complainant is seeking remedy before the trial court for getting the sale-deed declared as null and void, no administrative exercise of power by the Lokayukta can render the sale- deed void. He further submits that it is a such matter where the Court of Law would be only competent forum for getting the effective relief as the complainant wants by way of complaint made before the Deputy Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ankur Mishra, Chandra Kumar Rai, Devansh Misra Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Manas Bhargava Shabnam Parveen .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 5 Others .....Respondent(s) Lokayukta. 4. Shri Devansh Mishra, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner in support of the above submission has drawn attention of the Court to the relevant provisions as contained under Section 8(1)(b) of the Lokayukta Act, 1975, according to which if a complaint containing the same grievance as has been raised seeking relief from a Tribunal or the Court of Law, the Lokayukta jurisdiction stands clearly barred. 5. Per contra, it is submitted by Shri Manas Bhargava, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent -Lokayukta that the complaint made by the complainant is not only confined to the validity of the sale-deed but with regard to the disproportionate assets created by the petitioner abusing his position in office that he held. He has also drawn the attention to the proviso of Section 8(1)(b) which permits the Lokayukta / Deputy Lokayukta to prima facie be satisfied whether the complaint lodged before the authority under the Act, 1975 would fall within the exception clause or not. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, we find there not to be only a civil suit filed in respect of the sale deed, in question, but the complaint encompasses a larger issue of disproportionate assets acquired by the petitioner by abusing his position in office. However, a finding is yet to be returned by the Deputy Lokayukta regarding maintainability of the complaint in the face of the fact that a civil suit is pending before the trial court, initiated by the same complainant. Hence, we direct the Deputy Lokayukta to take a final decision taking recourse to the proviso as contained under Section 8(1) of the Act, 1975, before proceeding further in the matter of complaint. Let the petitioner approach the Deputy Lokayukta making an application by raising such grounds as to the maintainability of the complaint with jurisdiction, including the issue of limitation, in view of the relevant provisions as contained under Section 8, and if he does so within two weeks' time, the Deputy Lokayukta shall proceed to examine the preliminary objections raised by the petitioner and shall be passing a final order in the matter within a further period of two months after giving opportunity of hearing to the respective parties as may be prescribed for WRIC No. 37551 of 2026 2 under the relevant rules. It is only after the decision is taken as directed herein above by the Deputy Lokayukta and such authority gets convinced that it has still jurisdiction despite pendency of suit that he will proceed further in the matter of notice dated 21.07.2026. 7. With the aforesaid observations/directions this writ petition stands disposed off. September 18, 2026 S.Prakash WRIC No. 37551 of 2026 3 (Siddharth Nandan,J.) (Ajit Kumar,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHASHI PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad